Pollard begins not with a declaration of war but with the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand in Sarajevo, framing it as the culmination of Austro-Serb tensions rooted in the Balkan wars of 1912–13. He notes that the murder gave a 'moral advantage to the oppressor' while leaving guilt unapportioned, hinting at possible instigation within the Habsburg empire. This opening sets a tone of measured analysis, avoiding simple blame.

The author, a professor of English history at London University, completed the manuscript in May 1919, before the peace treaties were signed. His preface suggests the book offers 'broad and familiar outlines' unaffected by later apologies, inviting readers to consider how contemporary events shaped his perspective.

The Assassination as a Catalyst

Pollard devotes the first chapter to the breach of peace, tracing the murder's roots to Austria's 1908 annexation of Bosnia and Serbia's rising prestige after the Balkan wars. He describes the Archduke as 'hated by dominant cliques' within the empire, suggesting internal Habsburg conflicts may have fueled the crime. The narrative emphasizes that the assassins were 'Slavs by birth' and Austrian subjects, complicating any simple attribution of guilt. Pollard's phrasing—'the guilt has yet to be apportioned'—reflects a historian's caution, even as he sets the stage for war. Readers should note how he balances moral judgment with geopolitical analysis, a pattern that recurs throughout the book.

The Naval Battle of Jutland: Accident or Design?

In his account of Jutland, Pollard challenges the British admiral's claim that the fleet engagement was accidental. He argues that Germany's entire naval force was 'outside their accustomed harbours' on 30 May 1916, and that such a concentration could not have occurred without intent. Pollard connects the naval sortie to Germany's desperate need for a victory after the Verdun campaign, suggesting that a successful sea battle might have prevented American intervention. He notes that Germany had 'some grounds for hope' given the risks, and that the battle's outcome was not immediately clear. This section exemplifies Pollard's method: he reads strategy through policy, treating military actions as deliberate choices rather than chance events.

The Submarine Campaign and American Intervention

Pollard details Germany's submarine warfare as a calculated gamble, citing the torpedoing of the Sussex in March 1916 and President Wilson's demand for a pledge not to sink without warning. He observes that Germany had 'no intention of keeping her pledge any longer than was convenient,' and that effective submarine extension would provoke American entry. The dismissal of Tirpitz, he writes, gave 'verisimilitude to Germany's new virtue'—a sardonic note that reveals Pollard's critical stance. He ties these naval maneuvers to the broader strategic picture: Germany needed to cripple Britain's fleet before the United States could intervene. This interweaving of diplomatic and military threads is characteristic of Pollard's approach, showing how he treats the war as a single, interconnected struggle.

Pollard's Contemporary Perspective

Because Pollard wrote before the peace treaties were finalized, his history lacks hindsight on the war's long-term consequences. The preface notes that the manuscript was finished in May 1919, with the last chapter revised in October—before the Treaty of Versailles was signed. This timing means his analysis of war aims and peace foundations is provisional, based on events as they unfolded. Readers should watch for moments where Pollard speculates on outcomes, such as his discussion of the 'freedom of the seas' and Wilson's demands. The book offers a snapshot of how an informed British historian understood the war at its close, without the later debates over reparations or collective security. This contemporary voice is both a strength and a limitation, inviting readers to compare Pollard's views with subsequent scholarship.

Pollard's account rewards readers who attend to his strategic reasoning and his willingness to question official narratives. He treats the war as a series of calculated moves by belligerents, not a chain of accidents. Because the book ends before the peace settlement, it leaves open questions about the war's legacy—questions that later historians would answer differently. For a first reading, focus on how Pollard connects political motives to military decisions, and note where his contemporary perspective shapes his judgments.